Vaccines "without trust?
Vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of modern medicine. Have prevented many deaths and suffering, many of them to the most worthy of protection as children. But they are a very sophisticated instrument. Neither doctors who work directly with patients, much less users are able to evaluate epidemiologically when the benefits of a vaccine are clearly outweigh their risks. Therefore, health authorities developed immunization schedules in which we all rely. The magnificent building of vaccines rests on a pillar of confidence.
The issue of trust is that it takes a lot to win, but lost in an instant. When a difficult issue assess as vaccination, trust is lost, the field is paid to questions, gossip, theories more or less justified, and so on. In an irresponsible and unintelligent, health authorities and some pharmaceutical companies are breaking down a beautiful building that has taken decades to build. How? Betraying the trust of citizens and using vaccination towards political and economic benefits.
The first step in this Tremeda health irresponsibility occurred when GSK meningococcal vaccine, a vaccine very effective, hit the market in the late 90's. Then he blew up health warnings on cases of meningitis There was nothing unusual, and sparked panic everyone into believing that vaccination was necessary and was not done for economic meanness, then PP government. I remember how they were used as antibacterial prophylaxis is sold in pharmacies. Then, the regional governments were quick to use the vaccine to the cry of "stupid the last." First disaster.
The second disaster was, year after year, the false news that "this year we expect a more virulent virus, according nosequé expert." When in 2008 the pope traveled to Australia, the media were quick to call "Papa flu," saying that young people from Europe carrying hazardous influenza virus. All false. Laboratories each year using this strategy to increase sales of influenza vaccine. And the media-idiots-bribed or press releases published outputs from the kitchen of a pharmaceutical laboratory.
The third disaster was the papillomavirus vaccine, publicly adopted in Spain by political and ideological reasons, not epidemiological studies, with newsprint to see the Minister Bernat Soria dance music to marketers of this product. To make matters worse, some of which benefit / risk not even know what well-educated doctors-only specialists on the subject, is at the discretion of parents or users, without information, have to decide whether vaccinated or not interested. Frightening. Of course, there is no other interest: as it is known that the fallacy of "safe sex", advertised to exhaustion by the Ministry of Health, will lead to an epidemic of condyloma and cervical cancer, the vaccine I covered a bit. ..
Finally, we have the current circus of influenza A. The WHO, which had made it clear that it is sold to laboratories and pressure groups (losartan recommended antihypertensive of choice just outside the market, and adopted as their own slogans of the abortion lobby and laboratories related to this business), now has been devoted to mount a worldwide scam with the flu A. The facts are as follows: since the beginning of the decade, several laboratories have invested millions in a matter of urgency to be prepared to produce vaccines against a possible flu pandemic. WHO has been responsible for spreading panic about a virus, the famous influenza A, which is nothing dangerous about the flu that attacks us every year. And the labs are going to make August.
Apparently, all you lose with this is money. But on the way we lost much more: now proliferate in myriad Internet Video demagogic cast doubt on many other aspects of vaccinations. The problem is that now these videos demagogic may lead many to suspect of vaccines which have always relied. And all because the WHO, health authorities, laboratories, media and other dipped in this racket, we have lost something far more important than money: trust.
is a pity that threatens to derail decades of labor and goods for all mankind, that have been achieved with vaccines. I
Monday, October 12, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Remove Sprocket From Schwinn Spinner
Why not dispense the morning-after pill health
pharmacist. When, in 2001, a national government approved the DDA PP and PSOE Andalusian regional government offered it for free in health centers, I was a pharmacist in a district primary health care. Studied the mechanism action of the DDA, and all studies confirm what their own data sheet says: that works by preventing conception, but with low efficiency, 50%, and the rest of their effect is achieved by preventing the implantation of the embryo. I
pharmacist to help people. I believe that every job, from the humblest to the most socially valued, must be able to give satisfaction to strive for a better society, that's the main thing. In particular, health professionals have a vocation to health care, not only what we demand, but everyone's health. That is, do I have so much responsibility on the health of the girl who demand a PDD, as on the life of the embryo that can carry in your breast. Give a product that can lead to death of this man, still in its infancy, it is against the most elementary principles of the pharmaceutical profession.
So, though I had a contract for works and services poor and my salary was the only one who entered the house, I determined to refuse any professional intervention that had anything to do with the DDA. When you changed jobs and went to the hospital, I informed the same decision for my department head. And so I have always acted opportunity has been presented.
Today I find the outrage that this product has been approved for purchase without a prescription at pharmacies. It has not seemed to matter to the Government, which is a product that attacks human life, not even the fact of uncertainty and repeated administration in adolescents, and has been shown epidemiologically that its availability does not reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancy. Approve and extend its use are making propaganda for an ideology that despises the prenatal human life, no health decisions. To make matters worse, the Ministry of Health has misled the people saying, in an official document, which is not an abortifacient because it does not work when the embryo has implanted, entering a dialectic unfortunate to hide the truth: that prevents embryo implantation, and therefore leads to the elimination of a human being. This brochure is posted on the web as is the General Council of Colleges of Pharmacy, shamelessly. And already approved another pill (ulipristal) can be used up to five days later.
If even this fails, we are free and funded abortion as a right with our taxes. And finally, the abortion failed to address the lives of adolescent girls and their families (it shatters), shame and misunderstanding just impose their fetid silence of solitude and sadness of hundreds of thousands of young women who was educated in the fallacy of "sex sure. "
Someday, sooner or later, someone will ask, and we wonder how we could fall as low pharmacists up to be a hazard for parents who want to give a humane and responsible education to their sons and daughters, because said to be able to sell us this, and even over the counter, just to us, we have a responsibility to society to ensure health. The answer to how we have fallen so low is very clear, and we find, by analogy, at the end of that unforgettable film about the Nuremberg trials: "it was that every time you dispense a product, knowing that threatened health and human life. " This professional responsibility we have and we autoexigírnosla. Sooner or later, someone will.
In short, the answer to why not dispense the PDD is simple, and is already in the first sentence of this comment.
Build A Rope Swing On A Dock
scientific considerations on the "morning after pill"
Paper prepared following the approval of the supply without prescription in pharmacies.
Professional intervention in relation to the so-called "morning after pill" (PDD) raises serious problems from the standpoint of professional ethics for many health professionals. Especially now, for the pharmaceutical, health care worker involved only in relation to the DDA, a correct interpretation of their professional duties may lead you to not dispense this product. EFFECT
Reproductive effects of DBM
The official sheet recognizes at least two main effects of DBM on reproductive function: the birth and antiimplantatorio. The contraceptive mechanism occurs by inhibiting ovulation. When this does not occur, and fertilization takes place, you may receive antiimplantatorio effect: by altering the ability of the lining of the uterus to receive the embryo at the right time, it can not implant in it and ends up being deleted.
In one study, women who received the DDA had a pregnancy rate of 1%. Accordingly, it is estimated that the use of the PDD could be reduced by 85% the chance of pregnancy. This figure could be overestimated, since the probability of pregnancy in the PDD applicants may already be impaired by stress, partial use of contraceptives, etc.
Effect of DBM in the rate of unplanned pregnancy
Numerous epidemiological studies of different nature and origin, show that the use of the PDD does not reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies, or the rate of abortions in the population (Raymond, Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007). How
can explain this paradox? First, the ability of DDA to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy may be overestimated. Moreover, it is known that a greater sense of protection induces greater acceptance of risk. There is difficulty in detecting changes in intimate behavior, some studies show that the availability of the PDD causes an increase in risky sexual behavior in adolescents (Belzer, Los Angeles, 2005), while other studies show no difference.
In Spain, the total number of units sold PDD has increased since its adoption in 2001, from 160,000 to over 600,000 in 2007. At that time, the rate of induced abortions not has decreased (69 858 abortions in 2001, 112,138 abortions in 2007, the latest official data available). Among adolescents, abortions have followed the same increase. In Andalusia, the PDD has been provided free at health centers. However, between 2000 and 2006, developments in Andalusia was 5 more abortions per thousand women, compared with 4 in the rest of Spain, failed to confirm it projected on the basis of epidemiological studies. SAFETY
Security
PDD for women
The PDD is a megadose hormone, equivalent to 20 times the daily dose of levonorgestrel used as anticonteptivo. Consequently, reactions occur frequently effects such as nausea (in 15% of cases), vomiting (15%), diarrhea (3%), fatigue (13%), vertigo or dizziness (20%), headache (10%), breast (8%), abdominal pain (15%), vaginal bleeding (31%) and delayed menstruation (5%).
These reactions may be more severe and frequent in people with a hormonal disorder, underlying disease, or ages at which sexual hormone balance is still in development.
is not known with certainty the safety of the PDD in adolescents, which were excluded from major clinical trials. Neither is known in government security repeated. This can be facilitated by a dispensing without prescription, even several administrations per year, which can have harmful effects on the female cycle.
uterine relaxing properties of levonorgestrel may delay the spontaneous abortion of viable embryos and implanted, increasing the risk of complications for women. For that reason, avoid progestogens in women who are at the beginning of pregnancy (Levonorgestrel, Micromedex 2009).
Finally, if the availability of the PDD induced an increase in risky sexual behaviors, such as observed by some authors, would increase the spread of disease transmission sexual such as AIDS, gonorrhea, yeast infections, human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, etc.. Security
PDD for the embryo
The PDD is not safe for the embryo, on the contrary, as by interfering with implantation in the uterus, prevent their physiological development, leading inevitably to death.
on an embryo or fetus resulting from a previous relationship which motivates the use of the DDA, and already in place, the safety of massive doses of postcoital levonorgestrel is poorly understood. Studies in a few cases seem to indicate that no significant adverse effects, but would require more extensive studies to verify their security. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
ethical and professional considerations
"It's not ethics admit the existence of a period in which human life is worthless. Consequently, the doctor is obliged to respect it from the beginning "(Article 25.1 of the Code of Ethics and Medical Ethics). For its part, "the pharmacist shall refrain from participating in any type of action, whether or not related to their profession, their knowledge and skills are put to the service of acts against life, human dignity or the rights of man "(Art. 10 of the Code of Professional Ethics Pharmaceuticals).
Since it is a scientifically proven fact that human life begins at conception, these requirements have a direct application to the conduct of health professionals.
should clarify that, where information dissemination and / or promotional DDA stated that the PDD is not abortion, it can be confusing the beginning of human life, with the time of clinical diagnosis of pregnancy (which is done after implantation). Moreover, although not always produce the effect antiimplantatorio, an elementary principle of precaution against an action that could endanger human life leads us to avoid actions that could end this life.
Moreover, the Code of Ethics and Pharmaceuticals, which meets minimum ethical principles require the pharmacist (Art. 1), provides in its general principles, that this, in practice, exceed the strict compliance adopt existing legislation and ethical behavior in all its activities (Art. 2), but not be requested or required (Art. 9).
A pharmacy is not just a trade, but a health facility. Activity and health, professional, pharmacist covers all functions in relation to the drug, since its acquisition, until dispensed and pharmaceutical care, including their duties in promoting community health. All of them can and should be your best professional and ethical criteria, for the sake of everyone's health. These criteria affect both their knowledge about the effect of PDD on the embryo, as the difficulty of ensuring maximum safety for women in the specific conditions under which the dispensing occurs.
The Medical Association has specified that "a medical act is not because it makes use of a technique, to a chemical or an instrument of those used in medicine." (Medical Journal, 15/09/1998). Similarly, the entire dosage form is worthy be considered medicine or any procedure that involves a dosage form is an act pharmacist. In this sense, the possibilities for cooperation in actions that threaten the health and even human life (abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide or not, euthanasia, etc.) Products using dosage forms, are expanding in some countries, and are a drift in the health professions clearly lost the ethical foundation that has sustained its historical development and its contribution to a better society.
Other considerations (psycho-social, economic, legal, etc.).
Consider, authoritatively, that the harmful effect of PDD the embryo is not relevant to the user, denying them access to that information in a clear and understandable, it is unfair to them and inconsistent with the scientific literature. Many women may face psychological feelings of guilt and frustration if, after using the DDA, come to the knowledge that their use may have killed a human life. Unfortunately, some brochures on the DDA, including the recently published by the Ministry of Health, fall into this defect.
The measure to allow the use of DBM without prescription counter as indicated in two judgments of the High Court (February 4 and October 8, 2003), justifying its distribution provided that is authorized by a physician prescription. In addition, the 1 st sentence assumes that the DDA can not be given to minors.
The total cost of the PDD in Spain, even if consumption remained stable, would be around 13 million euros annually. Recently (04/08/2009), the English Agency of Medicines in Spain has approved a new product for postcoital contragestation (ulipristal acetate, RH Pharma). The availability of the PDD without prescription in pharmacies allow their dealers (Bayer, Chiesi and Medimpex) make a market repositioning, the imminent advent of a new competitor. Using
PDD under 16 years:
- No representative studies in which it is shown that the use of PDD in children under 16 years (30-40% of consumers) is secure. Consequently, the supply charge and without prescription may conflict with Article 10.1.b) of LGURM which states that among the applicable requirements for approval of drugs is safety. We can not assure that the frequent intake during adolescence is without negative effects on sexual and reproductive health in adulthood.
- With PDD dispensing without prescription, the pharmacist must be the one to judge in some cases on the maturity of the child to decide on making a product affecting their health, entering into competition with the right and duty of parents to an educational intervention, a role that seems foreign to the work of a pharmacist. Experience shows that many children are not yet known sexual cycle, so taking a medicine that depends on these factors can lead to complicated situations.
or Article 9, 3.c) of Patient Autonomy Act states that where the minor patient is not intellectually or emotionally capable of understanding the scope of the intervention, consent shall be given by the legal representative . In the case of children unable or not disabled, but emancipated or sixteen years old, no it should give consent by proxy. However, in case of serious risk of action, at the discretion of the physician, parents will be informed and their views be taken into account when making the decision.
- Nothing prevents it from being a man who acquires the DDA unintentionally can facilitate unscrupulous and even criminal behavior of abuse of female minors, such as those that occur within the family. SUMMARY
the evaluation of the PDD:
The PDD is a product that does not reduce the population incidence of unplanned pregnancy or induced abortion, antiimplantatorio its effect can be fatal to the life of the embryo, which has troublesome side effects are very common for users, which could be harmful in adolescents, or repeated misuse or as a contraceptive, etc., representing unnecessary cost to society and that is a conflict of ethics and ethical principles recognized by many health professionals.
The dispensation of the PDD without medical supervision can encourage their use, difficult information for users and aggravate its security problems.
Legal considerations and performance to the dispensation of the PDD
The law requires pharmacists to dispense medications that are properly required except for just cause (Art. 101.15 of the Act guarantees and rational use of medicines, LGURM), including non-prescription for dispensing. We understand that a petition for dispensation of the DDA, may be valid reasons to oppose his best professional approach to the dispensation of the PDD:
- Knowledge about the harmful impact of PDD on the embryo
- Knowledge its overall negative effect on public health, for their ineffectiveness population, insecurity and cost.
- Failure to ensure safety for women, due to:
or the uncertainty of possible diseases, pregnancy or other baseline of the user,
or lack of a record of usage to detect repeated use would be harmful to your health,
or inability to properly judge the maturity of a child in the concrete conditions of the supply of the DDA, or uncertainty
who will actually be the recipient of the product being dispensed,
or inability to take responsibility, as the only health worker involved in the process, for any errors or adverse consequences that may arise from the administration of the product dispensed and would be potentially avoidable.
These would, in our view, sufficient conditions to express explicitly the PDD and applicants who may require, the unsuitability of the supply. Constitute what has been called "object of science." This is a pharmacist's performance, exercising their professional autonomy in the interest of the health of those who are covered by their professional liability (including potential embryo), refuses to dispense a harmful product, or in conditions that are far from ensuring an appropriate risk-benefit balance. Other health professionals (doctors, nurses) could exercise their professional autonomy as scientific and ethical criteria analogous paraprofessionals.
addition, the professional involved in the use of the PDD (doctor, pharmacist, nurse) qualifies for conscientious objection, refusing to dispense a product harmful to the life of the embryo. This is a fundamental right, which is part of freedom of ideology and conscience, and that enables in exceptional and duly justified situations, not to comply with a legal obligation because it conflicted with personal conscience.
As much as you say, the legal measure to enable the dispensing of DBM without prescription in pharmacies did not change, nor can it change the validity and legitimacy of the right to conscientious objection, as a fundamental right linked to the constitutional freedom of conscience (Art. 16 of the Constitution), recognized by several statements, enshrined in the Code of Ethics and collected, in addition, several regional laws (Galicia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha). This right, as noted, among others, the TC can be exercised regardless of whether there is a specific law to regulate it. Professional who recognizes the need to invoke this right as a citizen should not give it, since the objection is a right for all, and if the rights are not exercised, will end up losing.
The refusal of a health professional to dispense a product harmful to human life, fit both the simple exercise of best professional criteria, such as invoking a conscientious objection as relevant scientific, ethical and professional are inseparable. A truly professional performance worthy of the name only when it is both ethically impeccable and based on the best scientific evidence available. 
Andalusian
Paper prepared following the approval of the supply without prescription in pharmacies.
Professional intervention in relation to the so-called "morning after pill" (PDD) raises serious problems from the standpoint of professional ethics for many health professionals. Especially now, for the pharmaceutical, health care worker involved only in relation to the DDA, a correct interpretation of their professional duties may lead you to not dispense this product. EFFECT
Reproductive effects of DBM
The official sheet recognizes at least two main effects of DBM on reproductive function: the birth and antiimplantatorio. The contraceptive mechanism occurs by inhibiting ovulation. When this does not occur, and fertilization takes place, you may receive antiimplantatorio effect: by altering the ability of the lining of the uterus to receive the embryo at the right time, it can not implant in it and ends up being deleted.
In one study, women who received the DDA had a pregnancy rate of 1%. Accordingly, it is estimated that the use of the PDD could be reduced by 85% the chance of pregnancy. This figure could be overestimated, since the probability of pregnancy in the PDD applicants may already be impaired by stress, partial use of contraceptives, etc.
Effect of DBM in the rate of unplanned pregnancy
Numerous epidemiological studies of different nature and origin, show that the use of the PDD does not reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies, or the rate of abortions in the population (Raymond, Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007). How
can explain this paradox? First, the ability of DDA to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy may be overestimated. Moreover, it is known that a greater sense of protection induces greater acceptance of risk. There is difficulty in detecting changes in intimate behavior, some studies show that the availability of the PDD causes an increase in risky sexual behavior in adolescents (Belzer, Los Angeles, 2005), while other studies show no difference.
In Spain, the total number of units sold PDD has increased since its adoption in 2001, from 160,000 to over 600,000 in 2007. At that time, the rate of induced abortions not has decreased (69 858 abortions in 2001, 112,138 abortions in 2007, the latest official data available). Among adolescents, abortions have followed the same increase. In Andalusia, the PDD has been provided free at health centers. However, between 2000 and 2006, developments in Andalusia was 5 more abortions per thousand women, compared with 4 in the rest of Spain, failed to confirm it projected on the basis of epidemiological studies. SAFETY
Security
PDD for women
The PDD is a megadose hormone, equivalent to 20 times the daily dose of levonorgestrel used as anticonteptivo. Consequently, reactions occur frequently effects such as nausea (in 15% of cases), vomiting (15%), diarrhea (3%), fatigue (13%), vertigo or dizziness (20%), headache (10%), breast (8%), abdominal pain (15%), vaginal bleeding (31%) and delayed menstruation (5%).
These reactions may be more severe and frequent in people with a hormonal disorder, underlying disease, or ages at which sexual hormone balance is still in development.
is not known with certainty the safety of the PDD in adolescents, which were excluded from major clinical trials. Neither is known in government security repeated. This can be facilitated by a dispensing without prescription, even several administrations per year, which can have harmful effects on the female cycle.
uterine relaxing properties of levonorgestrel may delay the spontaneous abortion of viable embryos and implanted, increasing the risk of complications for women. For that reason, avoid progestogens in women who are at the beginning of pregnancy (Levonorgestrel, Micromedex 2009).
Finally, if the availability of the PDD induced an increase in risky sexual behaviors, such as observed by some authors, would increase the spread of disease transmission sexual such as AIDS, gonorrhea, yeast infections, human papillomavirus and cervical cancer, etc.. Security
PDD for the embryo
The PDD is not safe for the embryo, on the contrary, as by interfering with implantation in the uterus, prevent their physiological development, leading inevitably to death.
on an embryo or fetus resulting from a previous relationship which motivates the use of the DDA, and already in place, the safety of massive doses of postcoital levonorgestrel is poorly understood. Studies in a few cases seem to indicate that no significant adverse effects, but would require more extensive studies to verify their security. ADDITIONAL ISSUES
ethical and professional considerations
"It's not ethics admit the existence of a period in which human life is worthless. Consequently, the doctor is obliged to respect it from the beginning "(Article 25.1 of the Code of Ethics and Medical Ethics). For its part, "the pharmacist shall refrain from participating in any type of action, whether or not related to their profession, their knowledge and skills are put to the service of acts against life, human dignity or the rights of man "(Art. 10 of the Code of Professional Ethics Pharmaceuticals).
Since it is a scientifically proven fact that human life begins at conception, these requirements have a direct application to the conduct of health professionals.
should clarify that, where information dissemination and / or promotional DDA stated that the PDD is not abortion, it can be confusing the beginning of human life, with the time of clinical diagnosis of pregnancy (which is done after implantation). Moreover, although not always produce the effect antiimplantatorio, an elementary principle of precaution against an action that could endanger human life leads us to avoid actions that could end this life.
Moreover, the Code of Ethics and Pharmaceuticals, which meets minimum ethical principles require the pharmacist (Art. 1), provides in its general principles, that this, in practice, exceed the strict compliance adopt existing legislation and ethical behavior in all its activities (Art. 2), but not be requested or required (Art. 9).
A pharmacy is not just a trade, but a health facility. Activity and health, professional, pharmacist covers all functions in relation to the drug, since its acquisition, until dispensed and pharmaceutical care, including their duties in promoting community health. All of them can and should be your best professional and ethical criteria, for the sake of everyone's health. These criteria affect both their knowledge about the effect of PDD on the embryo, as the difficulty of ensuring maximum safety for women in the specific conditions under which the dispensing occurs.
The Medical Association has specified that "a medical act is not because it makes use of a technique, to a chemical or an instrument of those used in medicine." (Medical Journal, 15/09/1998). Similarly, the entire dosage form is worthy be considered medicine or any procedure that involves a dosage form is an act pharmacist. In this sense, the possibilities for cooperation in actions that threaten the health and even human life (abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide or not, euthanasia, etc.) Products using dosage forms, are expanding in some countries, and are a drift in the health professions clearly lost the ethical foundation that has sustained its historical development and its contribution to a better society.
Other considerations (psycho-social, economic, legal, etc.).
Consider, authoritatively, that the harmful effect of PDD the embryo is not relevant to the user, denying them access to that information in a clear and understandable, it is unfair to them and inconsistent with the scientific literature. Many women may face psychological feelings of guilt and frustration if, after using the DDA, come to the knowledge that their use may have killed a human life. Unfortunately, some brochures on the DDA, including the recently published by the Ministry of Health, fall into this defect.
The measure to allow the use of DBM without prescription counter as indicated in two judgments of the High Court (February 4 and October 8, 2003), justifying its distribution provided that is authorized by a physician prescription. In addition, the 1 st sentence assumes that the DDA can not be given to minors.
The total cost of the PDD in Spain, even if consumption remained stable, would be around 13 million euros annually. Recently (04/08/2009), the English Agency of Medicines in Spain has approved a new product for postcoital contragestation (ulipristal acetate, RH Pharma). The availability of the PDD without prescription in pharmacies allow their dealers (Bayer, Chiesi and Medimpex) make a market repositioning, the imminent advent of a new competitor. Using
PDD under 16 years:
- No representative studies in which it is shown that the use of PDD in children under 16 years (30-40% of consumers) is secure. Consequently, the supply charge and without prescription may conflict with Article 10.1.b) of LGURM which states that among the applicable requirements for approval of drugs is safety. We can not assure that the frequent intake during adolescence is without negative effects on sexual and reproductive health in adulthood.
- With PDD dispensing without prescription, the pharmacist must be the one to judge in some cases on the maturity of the child to decide on making a product affecting their health, entering into competition with the right and duty of parents to an educational intervention, a role that seems foreign to the work of a pharmacist. Experience shows that many children are not yet known sexual cycle, so taking a medicine that depends on these factors can lead to complicated situations.
or Article 9, 3.c) of Patient Autonomy Act states that where the minor patient is not intellectually or emotionally capable of understanding the scope of the intervention, consent shall be given by the legal representative . In the case of children unable or not disabled, but emancipated or sixteen years old, no it should give consent by proxy. However, in case of serious risk of action, at the discretion of the physician, parents will be informed and their views be taken into account when making the decision.
- Nothing prevents it from being a man who acquires the DDA unintentionally can facilitate unscrupulous and even criminal behavior of abuse of female minors, such as those that occur within the family. SUMMARY
the evaluation of the PDD:
The PDD is a product that does not reduce the population incidence of unplanned pregnancy or induced abortion, antiimplantatorio its effect can be fatal to the life of the embryo, which has troublesome side effects are very common for users, which could be harmful in adolescents, or repeated misuse or as a contraceptive, etc., representing unnecessary cost to society and that is a conflict of ethics and ethical principles recognized by many health professionals.
The dispensation of the PDD without medical supervision can encourage their use, difficult information for users and aggravate its security problems.
Legal considerations and performance to the dispensation of the PDD
The law requires pharmacists to dispense medications that are properly required except for just cause (Art. 101.15 of the Act guarantees and rational use of medicines, LGURM), including non-prescription for dispensing. We understand that a petition for dispensation of the DDA, may be valid reasons to oppose his best professional approach to the dispensation of the PDD:
- Knowledge about the harmful impact of PDD on the embryo
- Knowledge its overall negative effect on public health, for their ineffectiveness population, insecurity and cost.
- Failure to ensure safety for women, due to:
or the uncertainty of possible diseases, pregnancy or other baseline of the user,
or lack of a record of usage to detect repeated use would be harmful to your health,
or inability to properly judge the maturity of a child in the concrete conditions of the supply of the DDA, or uncertainty
who will actually be the recipient of the product being dispensed,
or inability to take responsibility, as the only health worker involved in the process, for any errors or adverse consequences that may arise from the administration of the product dispensed and would be potentially avoidable.
These would, in our view, sufficient conditions to express explicitly the PDD and applicants who may require, the unsuitability of the supply. Constitute what has been called "object of science." This is a pharmacist's performance, exercising their professional autonomy in the interest of the health of those who are covered by their professional liability (including potential embryo), refuses to dispense a harmful product, or in conditions that are far from ensuring an appropriate risk-benefit balance. Other health professionals (doctors, nurses) could exercise their professional autonomy as scientific and ethical criteria analogous paraprofessionals.
addition, the professional involved in the use of the PDD (doctor, pharmacist, nurse) qualifies for conscientious objection, refusing to dispense a product harmful to the life of the embryo. This is a fundamental right, which is part of freedom of ideology and conscience, and that enables in exceptional and duly justified situations, not to comply with a legal obligation because it conflicted with personal conscience.
As much as you say, the legal measure to enable the dispensing of DBM without prescription in pharmacies did not change, nor can it change the validity and legitimacy of the right to conscientious objection, as a fundamental right linked to the constitutional freedom of conscience (Art. 16 of the Constitution), recognized by several statements, enshrined in the Code of Ethics and collected, in addition, several regional laws (Galicia, La Rioja, Castilla-La Mancha). This right, as noted, among others, the TC can be exercised regardless of whether there is a specific law to regulate it. Professional who recognizes the need to invoke this right as a citizen should not give it, since the objection is a right for all, and if the rights are not exercised, will end up losing.
The refusal of a health professional to dispense a product harmful to human life, fit both the simple exercise of best professional criteria, such as invoking a conscientious objection as relevant scientific, ethical and professional are inseparable. A truly professional performance worthy of the name only when it is both ethically impeccable and based on the best scientific evidence available.
Hyperthyroid Neck Pain
Dignity Act before the death process in Andalusia: the Trojan horse for euthanasia.
This law seems innocuous, but quite the opposite: a Trojan horse. The "trick" is in the definitions used, significantly different to the common use of terms. The law is not restricted to avoid therapeutic cruelty (it would be a good thing), but requires a physician to perform passive euthanasia, which is what they did to Terry Schiavo and Eluana Englaro, so that we understand: BLS withdraw non-therapeutic as drinking and eating, to die.
If we study the law, then we come to a deliberate confusion, which disguises the bitterness law against what is not. It is precisely in the definitions are a prelude to the law and are wrong:
"f) Limitation of treatment: Withdrawal or non-establishment of a support measure VITAL or any other intervention, given the poor prognosis patient in terms of quantity and quality of future life, is, according to health professionals involved, futile, only helps to prolong the time a clinical situation lacks a reasonable expectation of improvement.
g) MEASURE OF LIFE SUPPORT: health intervention aimed at maintaining a patient's vital signs, regardless of whether the ACT or non-therapeutic intervention on the disease or biological process, which threatens the life of the patient. "
Thus "withholding treatment" is defined as a tortuous effort limitation necesria NO TREATMENT. This is a contradiction in terms, "but has a very clear purpose: not to distinguish between what are the therapeutic measures or extraordinary keep a patient alive (drugs, mechanical ventilation, parenteral nutrition) and ordinary care or ordinary measures such as the feed to the patient or give him a drink. And you get to demonize a measure such as watering, no less than the following definition:
i) therapeutic futility: A situation in which a person found in the terminal or dying, you start or maintain SIOPORTE MEASURES VITAL or other interventions that lack of clinical utility, which only prolong their biological life, with no real chance of improvement or recovery, being therefore subject to limitation. "
So just by squaring the circle: it is not even therapeutic, is treated as "therapeutic obstinacy." Therapeutic obstinacy would therefore give water to a terminal patient.
It's amazing how it has diverted attention from many professionals, how it has "gold pill" into thinking that this law allows the terminal sedation and analgesia but runs the risk of shortening life (which in itself is ethically acceptable and common practice), and instead the problem, very serious, terrible, unheard of anywhere else-is the law.
But there is another dismal
"L) Palliative sedation: Administration of drugs, dosages and combinations required to reduce the consciousness of a terminally ill patient or agony, to relieve symptoms adequately one or more refractory explicit informed consent on the terms set out in Law. "
These are ambiguous definitions that allow it. He identified two "stop", and introduced as the first order to "reduce the conscience." One thing is to reduce awareness and other sedate. Sedar is to respond to restlessness or anxiety, using a sedative or anxiolytic action, which is the same. At higher doses, the effect is hypnotic, and can be reached drug induce coma. This is "reduce consciousness" ... to the extreme, far beyond sedation. As written, the law would consider as "palliative sedation" for a man who learns he has lung cancer and will have four months of life, and which says: "I want you to sleep as long as I left and not learn anything, because it makes me uneasy. "
also uses the ambiguous term "terminal sedation" when more accurate would be "palliative sedation in agony," clearly to extend not only to the time when death is very close, but the whole, against as recommended by the Palliative Care Society (SECPAL): "terminal sedation is defined as the deliberate administration of drugs to achieve relief, unattainable with other measures of physical pain and / or psychologically, by lowering expected deep enough irreversible consciousness in a patient whose death is very close and with their explicit consent, implicit or delegate. " I also omitted the "unattainable with other measures." In short, this is ambiguous and misuses and will so far: with this in hand, any patient can ask their doctors to induce a coma and will not give or drink until I die, or risk being defendants, if they do, of "therapeutic stubbornly, and unable even to refuse to do so for personal and professional conscience. Unprecedented.
But how many months you have to be living with this man?. In palliative care, is generally regarded as "terminal condition" a life expectancy of less than six months: http://www.secpal.com/guiacp/index.php?acc=dos
"1. Presence of disease advanced, progressive, incurable.
2. Lack of a reasonable chance of response to specific treatment.
3. Presence of numerous problems or severe symptoms, multiple, multifactorial and changeable.
4. Great emotional impact on patient family and treatment team, closely related to the presence, explicitly or not, death.
5. Prognosis of less than 6 months. "
How understand the law? Here:
" o) TERMINAL STATUS: The presence of advanced disease, incurable and progressive, with no reasonable chance of response to specific treatment, with a forecast limited life and in which severe symptoms and changing concur that require intensive specific interventions by health professionals
.
"Limited" ... without limit! But who does not have a "limited life prognosis? That indefinción, what it does in fact remove the limitation of time and let the conditions have "advanced disease, incurable and progressive, with no reasonable chance of response to specific treatment in severe symptoms who attend and changing, but the patient can live for two years, four, etc.
In conclusion, the legislator has manipulated the definitions to make a law tortious, fooling everyone. Reading the information that is on this law, had almost reached the view that the fund does not cover anything new, it was a law to the gallery. Tremendous error! This law is a bomb that demonized the most basic care to the patient's life and allows terminal inducing a coma and passive euthanasia to any patient, perhaps even without knowing what these definitions tort down, have not treated with "therapeutic obstinacy" when you have an incurable disease. 
This law seems innocuous, but quite the opposite: a Trojan horse. The "trick" is in the definitions used, significantly different to the common use of terms. The law is not restricted to avoid therapeutic cruelty (it would be a good thing), but requires a physician to perform passive euthanasia, which is what they did to Terry Schiavo and Eluana Englaro, so that we understand: BLS withdraw non-therapeutic as drinking and eating, to die.
If we study the law, then we come to a deliberate confusion, which disguises the bitterness law against what is not. It is precisely in the definitions are a prelude to the law and are wrong:
"f) Limitation of treatment: Withdrawal or non-establishment of a support measure VITAL or any other intervention, given the poor prognosis patient in terms of quantity and quality of future life, is, according to health professionals involved, futile, only helps to prolong the time a clinical situation lacks a reasonable expectation of improvement.
g) MEASURE OF LIFE SUPPORT: health intervention aimed at maintaining a patient's vital signs, regardless of whether the ACT or non-therapeutic intervention on the disease or biological process, which threatens the life of the patient. "
Thus "withholding treatment" is defined as a tortuous effort limitation necesria NO TREATMENT. This is a contradiction in terms, "but has a very clear purpose: not to distinguish between what are the therapeutic measures or extraordinary keep a patient alive (drugs, mechanical ventilation, parenteral nutrition) and ordinary care or ordinary measures such as the feed to the patient or give him a drink. And you get to demonize a measure such as watering, no less than the following definition:
i) therapeutic futility: A situation in which a person found in the terminal or dying, you start or maintain SIOPORTE MEASURES VITAL or other interventions that lack of clinical utility, which only prolong their biological life, with no real chance of improvement or recovery, being therefore subject to limitation. "
So just by squaring the circle: it is not even therapeutic, is treated as "therapeutic obstinacy." Therapeutic obstinacy would therefore give water to a terminal patient.
It's amazing how it has diverted attention from many professionals, how it has "gold pill" into thinking that this law allows the terminal sedation and analgesia but runs the risk of shortening life (which in itself is ethically acceptable and common practice), and instead the problem, very serious, terrible, unheard of anywhere else-is the law.
But there is another dismal
"L) Palliative sedation: Administration of drugs, dosages and combinations required to reduce the consciousness of a terminally ill patient or agony, to relieve symptoms adequately one or more refractory explicit informed consent on the terms set out in Law. "
These are ambiguous definitions that allow it. He identified two "stop", and introduced as the first order to "reduce the conscience." One thing is to reduce awareness and other sedate. Sedar is to respond to restlessness or anxiety, using a sedative or anxiolytic action, which is the same. At higher doses, the effect is hypnotic, and can be reached drug induce coma. This is "reduce consciousness" ... to the extreme, far beyond sedation. As written, the law would consider as "palliative sedation" for a man who learns he has lung cancer and will have four months of life, and which says: "I want you to sleep as long as I left and not learn anything, because it makes me uneasy. "
also uses the ambiguous term "terminal sedation" when more accurate would be "palliative sedation in agony," clearly to extend not only to the time when death is very close, but the whole, against as recommended by the Palliative Care Society (SECPAL): "terminal sedation is defined as the deliberate administration of drugs to achieve relief, unattainable with other measures of physical pain and / or psychologically, by lowering expected deep enough irreversible consciousness in a patient whose death is very close and with their explicit consent, implicit or delegate. " I also omitted the "unattainable with other measures." In short, this is ambiguous and misuses and will so far: with this in hand, any patient can ask their doctors to induce a coma and will not give or drink until I die, or risk being defendants, if they do, of "therapeutic stubbornly, and unable even to refuse to do so for personal and professional conscience. Unprecedented.
But how many months you have to be living with this man?. In palliative care, is generally regarded as "terminal condition" a life expectancy of less than six months: http://www.secpal.com/guiacp/index.php?acc=dos
"1. Presence of disease advanced, progressive, incurable.
2. Lack of a reasonable chance of response to specific treatment.
3. Presence of numerous problems or severe symptoms, multiple, multifactorial and changeable.
4. Great emotional impact on patient family and treatment team, closely related to the presence, explicitly or not, death.
5. Prognosis of less than 6 months. "
How understand the law? Here:
" o) TERMINAL STATUS: The presence of advanced disease, incurable and progressive, with no reasonable chance of response to specific treatment, with a forecast limited life and in which severe symptoms and changing concur that require intensive specific interventions by health professionals
.
"Limited" ... without limit! But who does not have a "limited life prognosis? That indefinción, what it does in fact remove the limitation of time and let the conditions have "advanced disease, incurable and progressive, with no reasonable chance of response to specific treatment in severe symptoms who attend and changing, but the patient can live for two years, four, etc.
In conclusion, the legislator has manipulated the definitions to make a law tortious, fooling everyone. Reading the information that is on this law, had almost reached the view that the fund does not cover anything new, it was a law to the gallery. Tremendous error! This law is a bomb that demonized the most basic care to the patient's life and allows terminal inducing a coma and passive euthanasia to any patient, perhaps even without knowing what these definitions tort down, have not treated with "therapeutic obstinacy" when you have an incurable disease.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Lost The Combination To A Master Lock
the truth is that some time ago that I do not signs of life, but I had a somewhat forgotten September, finally, I have too much to do and too little time but there are little things out, I have to render again the scene of the car to change the lighting to the car and as I have a thousand files of that scene is not what is the date and what not, and what weight to go around watching and taking test renders ... xD
Then I began with a character who is more or less finished face but telling step up missing it and all the body hair and such and that is roll anime, so is not no big deal in terms of modeling high, and growing in the end I think I'll do the animation reel only and if that will put all things end modeling quick and roll already, because if I have to get into then make the rig a character, that works, make an animation with the character I will be all hands, again, in time.
the other hand I have started this week with the animation down a ladder, which in theory should be longer but I think I'll leave it at least for the moment to try to encourage other rigs than Norman and just because it would be very long such as I have always thought of as less quality longer if not proportionally increase the time it .
And all this along with trying to get me a driver's license mean that the days are fleeting and do not have time for anything -.-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)